https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
honest as to what they were doing.
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia- intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba- e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise they
should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more
honest as to what they were doing.
Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
why Intellignet Design is wrong,
vallor wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:37:52 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote in <AdXNN.93920$LONb.3185@fx08.iad>:
RonO wrote:intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba- e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-
-------------------------------------The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise theyConsidering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been more honest as to what they were doing.
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
The answer to the question is "mu".
(The burden of proof is on the ID proponents to present evidence
that it is "right".)
Additionally, I see you aren't using a spell checker. Is that
a new development, or were you fibbing when you said your spell checker "corrected" the name "Osama" to someone else in your bigoted statement, hmmm?
My bigotry is directed towards terrorist. I hate terrorist violence. I question that you love terrorist. But what other reason for challenging my view?
RonO wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise
they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been
more honest as to what they were doing.
Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
why Intellignet Design is wrong,
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.html
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise
they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have been
more honest as to what they were doing.
Considering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to know
why Intellignet Design is wrong,
On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.htmlConsidering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since
the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in
any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise
they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
been more honest as to what they were doing.
;
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor
in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities; second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at cross-purposes and
some of which are inimical to humans; and third, that past explanations
of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
of failure.
RonO wrote:
On 3/30/2024 11:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:The creationist ID scam has always conflated the common notion of
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.htmlConsidering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be
since the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools
isn't a scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what
it is in any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe
otherwise they should have made that clear in the act, and they
should have been more honest as to what they were doing.
;
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
Ron Okimoto
theory as equivalent to some type of guess, with what a scientific
theory actually is. The creationists do this because they need to lie
to themselves about what the theory of biological evolution is. Behe
and Denton have told the rubes for decades that biological evolution
is more than just a theory in the creationists sense of theory, and
have told them that biological evolution is just a fact of nature that
any intelligent design explanation would have to incorporate in order
to reflect reality.
Intelligent design has never been a scientific theory. The ID perps
have known this since they started the ID scam. Behe knew that ID
wasn't a scientific theory, and even claimed that ID was equivalent to
the type of theories around when intelligent design advocates were
still burning heretics at the stake. He claimed that ID was an
equivalent theory to astrology as practiced in the middle ages when
astronomers of the time were casting horoscopes to pay the bills.
What you should be wondering is what type of theories this act allows
to be discussed because there are no scientific alternatives worth
discussing at this time. The ID perps understand this. That is why,
if you read the article, that the ID perps do not want ID to be taught
in the public schools. They may use ID as bait, but that is all ID
has ever been for the ID scam. All the ID perps have ever given the
rubes to teach is an obfuscation and denial switch scam that the ID
perps tell the rubes, has nothing to do with ID. Really, read the
article that I linked to above. The ID perps have been running the
bait and switch on the creationist rubes for 22 years, and that is
what they are doing now in West Virginia. They really do not want ID
to be taught in the public schools. They know that it will only end
up like Kitzmiller. The ID perps were asleep at the switch. It looks
like they never refilled the staff position responsible for making
sure that the bait and switch always went down, and they were not able
to stop this legislation from passing, as they had done in years past
in other states. So they have to try to keep the rubes from teaching
the junk and exposing the ID scam for what it has always been, again.
Dover was the last time that they failed to run the bait and switch,
and the creationist rubes tried to teach ID anyway. They have failed
again, and the only thing that they can do is tell the rubes not to
teach the junk.
When I wrote the 3/29 post in this thread the ID perps had removed
their education policy claiming to be able to teach ID in the public
schools from their web site, but now it is back up on the web site.
For a few years after they had to run the bait and switch on both
Louisiana and Texas the ID perps had removed the "required" paragraph
from their education policy because both Louisiana and Texas were
claiming that they were not requiring ID to be taught, but the ID
perps did not want ID to be taught, period. The ID perps had to go
back to using ID as bait and rewrote their education policy. The
creationist rubes just do not like the switch scam because they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to know what they
have to deny.
https://www.discovery.org/a/3164/
The current education policy, likely, should be enough to deter the
rubes from trying to teach the junk in the public schools, but the ID
perps still claim that it is legal to teach ID in the public schools
in their educator's briefing packet. Instead the current education
policy runs the bait and switch, and puts ID out as bait, but wants
the rubes to teach the obfuscation and denial switch scam, instead of ID.
https://www.discovery.org/f/1453/
Using ID as bait is all the ID perps have done for over two decades.
Not a single creationist rube legislator or school board has gotten
any ID science to teach from the ID perps, all they have ever gotten
is the obfuscation and denial switch scam. Read the article linked to
in the original post, and note that Luskin is one of the authors of
the briefing packet putting ID out as bait, but what is Luskin giving
the West Virginia creationist rubes instead?
The problem I have with this scenario is the fact that Intelligent
design is identified with Genesis Creationism with no distinctions
drawn. This I think is dishonest and underhanded. There is a
difference.
Ron Okimoto
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.htmlConsidering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative
"theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since >>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a
scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in >>> any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise
they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
been more honest as to what they were doing.
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's Razor in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities;
What entities does ID posit?
second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at cross-purposes and
some of which are inimical to humans;
Where did you multiple designer? You provided no examples regarding cross-postoing and inimical to humans.
and third, that past explanations
of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record
of failure.
Really the origin of life, itself could very well be the work of God.
The appearance of the complex unicellular animals of the Cambrian
explosion. And the abrupt appearance and of most species in the strata
could be explained as a act of God. And the origin of the universe
called the Big Bang everything from nothing. Only God could create everything out or nothing. Of course, it comes down to anyone who denies
the existence of God, has no alternative, but to try finding natural explanations for what is observed and known. But where did these natural laws, mathematics, and natural processes come from - IOW what is the
origin of nature? For decades, I thought that agnosticism was the most rational point of view to have, but I recently come much closer to think there is evidence pointing to a strong possibility that there must be
some thing out there beyond our universe called God calling the shots.
But I don't pretend to know! But I think the evidence poijnting to God
is there, and no contrary evidence.
RonO wrote:
[...]
Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
creationists? To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes, there
isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical creationism to
worry about. If you do not understand that, you are not competent
enough to discuss the issue.
This is so typical of the disinformation, misrepresentation and
deliberate lies regarding intelligent design which has been widely
published by antagonist from the beginning. This dishonesty, deceit ad treachery was used at the Dover Trials even deceiving the judge. So
cock-sure are these antagonist that they go to the extent to create
false information which the attribute to advocates of intelligent
design. The are unrepentant liars and deliberate deceivers, with no conscience and no sense of moral right and wrong. And you sir are a
gdamn master of it all!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/21/24 2:17 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
[...]This is so typical of the disinformation, misrepresentation and
Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
creationists? To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes,
there isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical
creationism to worry about. If you do not understand that, you are
not competent enough to discuss the issue.
deliberate lies regarding intelligent design which has been widely
published by antagonist from the beginning. This dishonesty, deceit ad
treachery was used at the Dover Trials even deceiving the judge. So
cock-sure are these antagonist that they go to the extent to create
false information which the attribute to advocates of intelligent
design. The are unrepentant liars and deliberate deceivers, with no
conscience and no sense of moral right and wrong. And you sir are a
gdamn master of it all!
The Dean doth protest too much, methinks.
When the intelligent design proponents in the Dover trial as much as
say, "Look here! We're creationists", what do you expect the judge to conclude? And why would you conclude otherwise?
There is a difference. Creation is based upon the grounds that the
universe was created 6000 years ago in six (6) twenty four days by the
God of the Bible. Then God finally created man on the last day of the
6/th day period by taking a rib from Adam to create Eve. Intelligent
Design subscribes to none of this. Intelligent Design by contrast
observes highly complex entities in nature and sees this purposeful
design. The objective is to find supporting evidence of design. This is
about the limit of Intelligent Design. ID points to scientific evidence
which is claimed to indicate intentional design,
However, ID does not observe any evidence in nature which identifies the designer. The people who
think the designer is God bases their belief strictly on faith not
evidence.
Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:43:57 -0400I have been an evolutionist before, so I'm capable of changing my mind,
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/30/24 9:37 AM, Ron Dean wrote:>
RonO wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/22/west-virginia-intelligent-design-religion-teaching/367f8bba-e894-11ee-9eba-1558f848ec25_story.htmlConsidering the Intelligent design argument does not identify a
The claim is that if a student asks a teacher about some alternative >>>>>> "theory" the teacher can answer that question, but there is no
recommendation on what an honest and acceptable answer would be since >>>>>> the "theory" that they want to get into the public schools isn't a >>>>>> scientific theory, and should probably be labeled as to what it is in >>>>>> any discussion on the topic. If the legislators believe otherwise >>>>>> they should have made that clear in the act, and they should have
been more honest as to what they were doing.
t;
designer? How should this question be answered? A student wanted to
know why Intellignet Design is wrong,
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not necessarily wrong. What
students need to know about it is, first, that it violates Occam's
Razor
in that it posits superfluous and unnecessary entities;
What entities does ID posit?
second, that it requires multiple designers, some of which work at
cross-purposes and
some of which are inimical to humans;>
Where did you multiple designer? You provided no examples regarding
cross-postoing and inimical to humans.
and third, that past explanations
of natural phenomena in terms of the supernatural have a perfect record >>>> of failure.>
Really the origin of life, itself could very well be the work of God.
The appearance of the complex unicellular animals of the Cambrian
explosion. And the abrupt appearance and of most species in the strata
could be explained as a act of God. And the origin of the universe
called the Big Bang everything from nothing. Only God could create
everything out or nothing. Of course, it comes down to anyone who
denies
the existence of God, has no alternative, but to try finding natural
explanations for what is observed and known. But where did these
natural
laws, mathematics, and natural processes come from - IOW what is the
origin of nature? For decades, I thought that agnosticism was the most
rational point of view to have, but I recently come much closer to
think
there is evidence pointing to a strong possibility that there must be
some thing out there beyond our universe called God calling the shots.
But I don't pretend to know! But I think the evidence poijnting to God
is there, and no contrary evidence.
Evidence for evolution has been pointe out to you time and time again.
Yet you just keep reverting to some faith-based "intuition".
what's the three (3) most pertinent empirical evidences supporting
evolution that is not interpreted to fit into a pre- determined
paradigm? IE each that stands on it's own, signifying or describing
observed evolutionary change? Observation is an essential part of
scientific methodology.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 4/21/24 2:17 PM, Ron Dean wrote:There is a difference. Creation is based upon the grounds that the
RonO wrote:
[...]This is so typical of the disinformation, misrepresentation and
Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
creationists? To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes,
there isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical
creationism to worry about. If you do not understand that, you are
not competent enough to discuss the issue.
;
deliberate lies regarding intelligent design which has been widely
published by antagonist from the beginning. This dishonesty, deceit
ad treachery was used at the Dover Trials even deceiving the judge.
So cock-sure are these antagonist that they go to the extent to
create false information which the attribute to advocates of
intelligent design. The are unrepentant liars and deliberate
deceivers, with no conscience and no sense of moral right and wrong.
And you sir are a gdamn master of it all!
The Dean doth protest too much, methinks.
When the intelligent design proponents in the Dover trial as much as
say, "Look here! We're creationists", what do you expect the judge to
conclude? And why would you conclude otherwise?
universe was created 6000 years ago in six (6) twenty four days by the
God of the Bible. Then God finally created man on the last day of the
6/th day period by taking a rib from Adam to create Eve. Intelligent
Design subscribes to none of this.
Intelligent Design by contrast
observes highly complex entities in nature and sees this purposeful
design. The objective is to find supporting evidence of design. This is
about the limit of Intelligent Design. ID points to scientific evidence
which is claimed to indicate intentional design,
However, ID does not observe any evidence in nature which identifies the designer. The people who
think the designer is God bases their belief strictly on faith not
evidence.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 29:14:09 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,083 |